The one provenance argument that actually creates urgency: you can't go back

Something I have been thinking about in the AI governance space that I do not see discussed enough: provenance capture is not like most tooling categories.

With most observability or audit tooling, the reasoning is "we should have this so we're better positioned going forward." You can turn it on when the need becomes clear. You lose some history, but the tooling from that point forward is complete.

AI code provenance does not work this way.

The prompt a developer submits to Claude Code exists for a few hundred milliseconds in transit. After the model returns its response and the editor applies the change, that prompt is gone. Git records the diff. Nothing else records the origin by default. There is no reconstruct operation.

I built LineageLens partly because I ran into this problem in my own workflow — traced a bug to a block I had accepted from Cursor weeks earlier and had no way to recover what I had asked for. The architecture reflects this constraint directly: the Base extension (free, zero config, VS Code Marketplace) starts recording at the moment it installs. Not full provenance — file-level only until the proxy is running — but it starts preserving a timestamped

insertion history that cannot be recovered retroactively.

I am curious whether teams here have specifically run into the retroactive version of this problem: you had an incident or a compliance question, traced it to AI-generated code, and discovered the provenance window was already closed. How did that investigation go? Did it change how your team thought about when to start governance tooling?The VS Code extension is free and installs in under a minute if anyone wants to see what gets captured:

https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=karnatipraveen.lineagelens-base